Asian EFL Journal: English Language Teaching and Research Articles

Volume 6
Teachers Articles
October 2005
Article 1

Article Title

Munby's 'needs analysis' model and ESP

Author

Phan Le Ha

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss some criticisms made of Munby's (1978) book 'Communicative Syllabus Design' with a particular focus on Munby's 'needs analysis' model. It also points out some validity of this model in ESP (English for Specific Purposes) course design. Although the model has been a target for criticisms since it was introduced, it is useful to identify some of its values which can be applied to teach English in ESL and EFL contexts.
It will be argued that in most situations this model is impractical. However, from my own teaching experience, some of its values prove to be useful. Importantly, it is necessary to justify that Munby's approach should be drawn on as reference or a partly socio-linguistic base for designing a syllabus.

Introduction

As Nunan (1988:43) puts it, 'during the 1970s, needs analysis procedures made their appearance in language planning' and 'became widespread' in language teaching. In their first days, such procedures were used as "the initial process for the specification of behavioural objectives" which then explored different syllabus elements, such as functions, notions, lexis, in a more detailed manner. At the same time, Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) became a matter of general interest and LSP experts were making efforts to give birth to a more comprehensive and better LSP syllabus. As a result, needs analysis was warmly welcomed by LSP teachers as an approach to course design, which focused on learner's needs. But needs analysis did not find its remarkable influence and position in LSP until Munby's approach to needs analysis came into being. Munby's work "Communicative Syllabus Design" (1978) then became a target for criticisms by academics and linguists. Although Munby's work has been seen as having far more weak points than strong points, 'it has been very influential: either developments have stemmed from [it], or as a result of reactions to it' as Jordan (1997: 24) remarks.

Munby's approach to needs analysis
In his attempt to make a contribution to syllabus design, Munby (1978) proposed his approach to needs analysis which soon drew great attention from syllabus designers, particularly ESP architects. His work was a landmark in ESP and had a huge influence on ESP since it provided a new vision on individual needs (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). The work is briefly summarised as follows:

Munby's model consists of two stages: Communication Needs Processor (CNP) and the interpretation of the profile of needs derived from the CNP in terms of micro-skills and micro-functions. The CNP is set out under eight variables that 'affect communication needs by organising them as parameters in a dynamic relationship to each other' (p32). The CNP operates by looking at its 'inputs' - the foreign language participant - and information concerning the participant's identity and language. Then it requires information on the eight variables: purposive domain, setting, interaction, instrumentality, dialect, target level, communicative event, and communicative key. In the second stage of the model, the user must take the activities with their communicative keys and decide which of three alternative ways of processing them is appropriate. The alternatives are:
**specification of syllabus content by focusing on micro-skills
**specification by focusing on micro-functions
**specification by focusing on linguistic forms

Obviously, Munby explores thoroughly every aspect relating to learner's needs. His work is probably the most detailed and complex as well as informative. He thinks of the unthinkable and proves to be very thoughtful in the work. This analysis of Munby's approach focuses on the aspects of communication he emphasises and the assumptions regarding the roles of language, the learner, the syllabus, the teacher that lie behind his design. He emphasises all equal on:

- Purpose;
- Medium/mode/channel of communication;
- Sociolinguistic aspects;
- Linguistics;
- Pragmatics.

This indicates that he is taking into account language and culture and communication purpose, but pays no attention to implementation (activities, resources, and classroom dynamics). He also seems to assure a very teacher-directed method, in which students' inputs about purpose are superficial and only required at the beginning of the course. It is clear that his emphasis on text and his categorisation rely on his intuition. All of these weaknesses result in criticisms of his work.

Criticisms of Munby's work
Although complex, thorough and highly standardised, Munby's approach to needs analysis lacks consistency and shows no transparent links to syllabus design. This makes it weak and vulnerable to critiques and comments raised by other academics and linguists. Critics evaluate Munby's work from different perspectives and attitudes.

Davies (1981) does not hide his anger when criticising Munby's 'Communicative Syllabus Design' (CSD). He uses strong words and actually opposes Munby's book. He claims that Munby's book 'needs to be totally rewritten before publication as a book' (p332). As far as needs analysis is concerned, Davies states that CSD is about needs alone, 'which is a pity since the tension between needs and demands is one that is ripe for analysis. Needs are private, demands public, and it is arguable that language teachers are as much concerned with the former as the latter' (p332). The tittle of the book - CSD - embodies in itself its aim, that is to provide language teachers with a syllabus, but it is not in itself a syllabus, as Davies remarks 'what we do expect is that it will tell us how to construct a syllabus and by extension a textbook, etc.' 'But CSD never gets that far' (p333). Sharing a single view with Davies, Mead (1982: 75) argues that Munby's work aims to obtain a syllabus but 'he nowhere spells out what he means by the term "syllabus" and its precise reference is in doubt'.

Hawkey (1980), to a moderate extent, criticises Munnby's failure to produce an actual teaching/learning syllabus. Davies sees Munby's syllabus as a danger for language teaching and learning since a lot of controversial problems are still embedded in its design. To conclude, Davies states 'the fact that the problems are real and the solutions unreal lowers the value of this book' (p336). Although it is clear that Davies is very angry at Munby's publication, he still tries to find strong points and values underlying the book. He remarks that Munby attempts to produce a syllabus but does not quite follow it through.

If Davies views Munby's book critically, Hawkey (1980) seems to be more tolerant and moderate. Hawkey analyses Munby's work from the course designer's perspective. For the learner, Munby's needs analysis model is not a tool that can help them effectively or pragmatically for the following reasons. First, it presupposes a quite homogeneous language training situation with specific occupational or educational objectives. This proves to be implausible in heterogeneous classes where learners come from different backgrounds with varied language targets and proficiencies. Second, the model does not take all-round factors into consideration. In other words, Munby excludes important factors such as psycho-pedagogic, methodological and administrative issues from his model.

This fact may addict the learner in the sense that no workable and thorough syllabus could be implemented without them. Next, his model 'is not a questionnaire for direct use with learners' as he 'does not go into the matter of actual data' (p91). In addition, Munby neglects the actual facts of life (such as learners' characteristics, methodology, and resources) which actually operate a syllabus or determine how a syllabus works. Munby idealised these facts and this somewhat limits his aim. Despite these above limitations, Munby's model has been used in numerous course design situations and Hawkey counts it as the value of Munby's needs analysis and its contribution to language teaching and learning.

Mead's (1982) comments on Munby's work are generated from a micro-level view, which means he looks thoroughly at the individual aspects and then makes general comments based on his analysis of the specific components. Mead raises four comments and lists them according to the level of seriousness. Most seriously, as Mead puts it, 'the instrument is internally inconsistent: there are no formal restrictions on the membership of categories' (p74). Consequently, it is very difficult for learners and non-L1 teachers to distinguish between elements in the attitudinal tone index given by Munby. Actually, Munby expects learners to obtain a single target in spite of the fact that their targets are varied. Secondly, Munby shows no way to discriminate systematically between more and less significant variables. Put it another way, all the variables are of equal weight.

That really places pressure on learners when they want to express themselves implicitly or explicitly. Thirdly, 'the relationship between the model and its practical application is not made explicit' (p75). The 'participant' is referred to rather than the 'learner' as targeted by Munby's claim. Also, his refusal to discuss implementational constraints (socio-political, administrative) means that learning and resource problems are ignored. As a result, it is easily noticed that 'the model functions at a more abstract state' and obviously 'it promises more than can be delivered' (p76). Lastly, Mead argues that Munby's system is unsupported by either a formal linguistic theory of interaction, or empirical evidence, although it is complex.

It seems that Hutchinson and Waters (1987) appreciate Munby' s work more than they criticise it. What they do is to analyse needs from their points of view borrowing Munby's CNP at some stages. They see Munby's work (CSD) as 'a highly detailed set of procedures for discovering target situation needs' and 'the most thorough and widely known work on needs analysis' (p54). Based on the assumption that both target situation needs and learning needs must be taken into consideration, they conclude that what we need is 'a learning-centred approach to needs analysis', not just a list of the linguistic features of the target situation as Munby's CNP produces.

Coffey (1984) quite objectively mentions both advantages and disadvantages of Munby's model. In terms of advantages, 'that book offers not only an analysis of English into communicative functions, but directs the user into setting up a complete course design by creating profiles of student needs' (p7). Moreover, 'it telescopes two operations, needs analysis and course design, into one' (p7) which if works, ESP can benefit a lot. However, since the book was published, both theory and practice of needs analysis as well as course design have received more attention since the book embodies controversial assumptions about the literature. Its weaknesses are seen and named as objections to Munby. First of all, the process provided is too complicated to put into practice in most circumstances. Then, it does not give the user a flexible tool to use because it is 'a once-and-for-all process apparently need not be amended as time goes on' (p7). Types or level of communication may be unchanged but the learner's needs may change constantly.

Jordan (1997) labels Munby's model as 'target-situation analysis' approach, one among many approaches to needs analysis, such as present-situation analysis, deficiency analysis, strategy analysis, and so on. Jordan also comments that Munby's work was 'a landmark in the development of needs analysis, and probably the best known framework for target-situation analysis' (p22). However, like other authors, Jordan does make some criticisms of Munby's work. First, the model should have considered practical constraints at the start of the needs analysis procedure instead of considering them after the procedure had been work through. Second, 'the language items chosen for practice in ESP/EAP should reflect those used in the real world', not the language derived from social English as classified by Munby's model (p24). In addition, Jordan refers to West's (1994) criticisms of Munby's work, that 'Munby's attempt to be systematic and comprehensive inevitably made his instrument inflexible, complex and time-consuming' (p24). This results in the 'simplicity' of needs analysis. Moreover, as West (1994) sees it, 'Munby's model collects data about the learner rather than from the learner' (cited in Jordan, 1997: 24).

Criticisms of Munby's model have brought about hesitation in applying it into language teaching and learning. However, the model, to some extent, is valid for ESP course development.
Validity of Munby's needs analysis for ESP course development
In order to justify the validity of the model, I focus only on the ESP context. Just as ESP places emphasis on the learner's needs and how people learn, language learning in ESP also stresses on these matters. Different stages of development in theories of language will be discussed in combination with their applications to ESP. Then, how the Munby's model reflects that will be linked to the discussion.

The very first 'coherent theory of learning was the behaviourist theory' (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987:40) based on the work of Pavlov and Skinner. The theory argued that 'learning is a mechanical process of habit formation of a stimulus-response sequence' (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987:40), in which the basic exercise technique of a behaviourist methodology is pattern practice, particularly in the form of language laboratory drills. As a matter of fact, such drills are now still found in ESP textbooks with more and more interesting and meaningful contexts.

At this point, Munby's model proves to be valuable since it provides certain common pattern-like drills to indicate forms of modulation and mitigation, such as in the event 'Customs officer checking for illegal export of goods'; or 'Hotel waiter dealing with customers'. From my English teaching and learning experience, I find drill practice particularly useful for beginners' level since it equips learners with initial knowledge of making a dialogue in everyday English although it is not necessarily real-life in all circumstances. Moreover, such pattern practice exercises enjoy their popularity in language teaching, especially English for Business or Tourism, which requires some set forms of handling a situation. I see the value of Munby's model in this stage as a contribution to methodology.

'Mentalism': thinking as rule-governed activity, was the next step in the language learning development. It is 'one short step to the conclusion that learning consists not of forming habits but of acquiring rules-a process in which individual experiences are used by the mind to formulate a hypothesis' (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987:42). This step, then, built a bridge to 'cognitive code': learners as thinking beings, in which 'we learn by thinking about and trying to make sense of what we see, feel and hear' (p43). The fundamental teaching technique connected with this theory is the problem-solving task, which is very common in communicative classrooms. For ESP, this kind of task has been modelled on activities relating to learners' specialism. Munby's needs analysis, nevertheless, puts this theory aside when Munby tries to construct a communication environment referring to 'the participant' based on Munby's intuition and generalisation of different mental powers from his own assumption of how learners learn. In fact, as Hawkey (1980) argues, Munby assumes a homogeneous learning context in his model, but in reality, heterogeneity is of dominance.

Although it solves most theoretical and practical problems underlying 'behaviourism', the 'cognitive code' theory is not sufficient for a teaching method. To perfect it, approaches that attend the 'affective factor': learners as emotional beings, appeared. These treat learners as human beings, and the learning of a language as an emotional experience (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). The 'affective factor' determines the success or failure of the learning. Later, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) discuss this as 'wants', and Nunan (1989) defines this as 'motivation'. Both see this as the essence of needs analysis. Motivation is complex and highly individual matter according to some authors, such as Brumfit (1981), Hutchinson and Waters (1987), Nunan (1988), and Brown (1994). Hence, it is impossible to categorise learners' needs as ESP does with a simple assumption: target needs. Not naming it 'target needs', Munby illustrates the CNP as what is involved in communication needs. Even when ESP experts criticise Munby's model of intuition and categorisation, ESP itself is still tied to it.

As a teacher, I admit that I can not focus on every single motivation. What I actually do is to generate motivation from my students by combining mutual interests (eg. what they aim for, what they expect) with dominant groups of interests (eg future career, language use target) in my syllabus. Munby seems to forget the fact that learners are human beings who can think, feel, sense, see, create and be tired. That is why in his model, learners are seen as more passive and machine-like beings, who either productively or receptively are pressured by so many artificial factors raised by Munby. As Munby thinks, learners only need but do not want. It is far from the truth. What I have observed so far in language classes proves that 'wants' play a decisive role in mastering a language although 'needs' play a key role in learning it.

From what have discussed above, Munby's work only makes links to parts of how people learn a language. His work becomes even more vulnerable when comparing with the highly comprehensive pedagogic theories provided by Hymes (1972), Canale and Swain (1980), and Richards and Rodgers (1989). These authors discuss the concept of 'communicative competence' which covers grammatical (linguistic), sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic features of communication. These competences are suggested as having to be equally combined in a teaching syllabus to offer learners a fuller understanding of the language.

Also, recently, Benesch (1996) and Jordan (1997) have introduced their models of needs analysis which constitute all-round aspects of needs. Benesch (1996) offers 'critical needs analysis as an alternative approach to examining target situations' as clearly stated in the abstract of her paper (723). She considers 'conflicting interests from various levels of the academic hierarchy and explores possibilities for modifying the target situation' in order to build critical analysis, then discusses how to develop EAP (English for Academic Purposes) curriculum based on this critical needs analysis by giving an example of what she actually did in a paired ESL/psychology course (p730). Jordan (1997: 22) states that 'needs analysis should be the starting point for devising syllabuses, courses, materials and the kind of teaching and learning that takes place'.

He offers 10 'steps in needs analysis' which exemplify the following seven questions 'why the analysis is being undertaken; whose needs are to be analysed; who performs the analysis; what is to be analysed; how the analysis is to be conducted; when the analysis is to be undertaken; and where the EAP course is to be held' (p22-23). Obviously, while a growing concern about ESP course design has been put into agenda, Munby's model fails to satisfy its audience and customers since it only emphasises sociolinguistic and linguistic aspects. Moreover, it ignores vital down-to-earth facts to put the model into effect, such as socio-cultural, financial, and administrative features.

In terms of needs analysis alone, Munby views needs at a superficial level. His work looks thorough in its scale, but it only gently touches upon the actual needs. Therefore, I find it very difficult to implement with my students as well as to write my own syllabus based on his approach. Moreover, it takes time and costs money to conduct Munby's work. Even though ESP courses have become fashionable recently in Vietnam with the growth of the market economy, these courses have not been yet recognisably different from General English. Therefore, the application of Munby's is 'utopian' both theoretically and practically. However, to be fair, I think, I might make use of his work in some learning situations where all learners are Vietnamese university students learning English for Business purposes, for example.

Undoubtedly, Munby's work, though vague and impractical, has influenced ESP course development in the sense that it raises both theoretical and practical problems to be argued among authors. On the way to develop ESP methodology, ESP architects, to a certain extent, have constructed their theories based on Munby' model, or made analogies of it to build a better one.

Conclusion
This paper has discussed Munby's approach to needs analysis and criticisms of his work. Also, it has justified the validity of Munby's approach to ESP course development. With a view to making a fair judgment, it has explored both strong and weak points given by Munby. From all the work done, it is believed that Munby's approach should be drawn on as reference or a partly socio-linguistic base for designing a syllabus.

References
Benesch, S. 1996. Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: an example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30,4: 723-738

Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Canale, M. and .M. Swain, 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1,1:47

Coffey, B. 1984. Language teaching. (handouts)

Davies, A. 1981. Review of John Munby's Communicative Syllabus Design. TESOL Quarterly 15,3: 332-336

Hawkey, R. 1980. Needs analysis and syllabus design for specific purposes. In H.B.Actman and C.V.James (eds). Foreign language teaching: meeting individual needs. Oxford: Pergamon: 81-93.

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. 1987. English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Brumfit, C.J. and Johnson, K. (Eds.) 1979. The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1-26.

Jordan, R. R. 1997. English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mead. 1982. Review: 70-78. (handouts)

Munby, J. 1978. Communicative syllabus design. London: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. 1988. The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. 1989. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.